Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 6514 Case file # 95-258980 .

Material Examiner:

Case resulted in a trial, testimony transcript not provided.

CRM - 8713

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers ■

Review commenced at: 10:15AM (Time), 11/06/01 (Date)

File #: 95-258980 _

Laboratory #(s): 31227017

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xa

□

o

□

UL

□ _

XD

□

□

o

□

□

□

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: none available .

Testimony Date(s): Pages:

Laboratory Report(s):

A

Laboratory Number: 31227017 __ Date: Feb 13, 1984

Laboratory Number: ^ Date:

Laboratory Number: ‘ Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number: 31227017

Page 1 of 3

'm=^

nRM -8714

Initials:

Was any other material reviewed? Xo Yes a No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letter dated 12-19-83

File#: . 95-258980

Results of Review

Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q 1 , Q2,~Q1 1-Q14, K3-K6

Revie w of Laboratory Reports) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes □ No X □ Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? □ Yes XoNo □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1

Xn Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratoiy report(s)?

□ Yes

□ No

-a Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

□ Yes

□ No

■a Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Comments
■(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-258980

#1 : With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

in an appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated and are in pencil and not ink. Abbreviations are used to

describe the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret. There is no

documentation by the technician that hair was recovered from Ql, Q12 or Q13 as stated in the report.

Review completed at:

10:45 AM (Time),

11/06/01

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):

0.50 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total ofi 3 • pages.

(Signature)

11/06/2001

(Date)

Page

3 of 3

Initials: